Seems like each season has an overall arc of looking for a safe place, finding one with an invalid leader there, then removing/replacing the leader.

Season 1 - the CDC center with the crazy scientist
Season 2 - Old man who thinks everyone should be nice to the zombies
Season 3 - Governor, running a seemingly nice community, but really up to no good

Were the comics like that?

And as I was watching this last season, Woodbury really reminded me of the rabbit community in Watership Down which the protagonists are tempted to stay in. I get the feeling that there's some conscious nods to Watership Down.

We saw the same kind of story structure with the latest Toy Story - the toys arrive in the kindergarten and everything seems wonderful, but you find out that the leader (Lotso) is not unlike the Governor.

BTW - if anyone hasn't read Watership Down and you like the idea of a band of survivors looking for a new home, drop everything and read it. It's one of the best books ever written (IMO). Don't let the fact that it's about rabbits put you off for one second.

I'm on Carl's side. The guy was told to DROP his weapon, not creep forward and hand it over. It seemed obvious that the guy saw Carl (a kid), Herschel (old man on crutches) and Beth (girl hiding behind Herschel) and thought he could over power them.. That guy could easily overpower Carl (sorry son, puberty hasn't set in yet). Carl did the appropriate thing given the circumstances, no better than Rick bringing the young and old of Woodbury to the prison.

I'd have had no problem with Carl's actions if he'd actually warned the kid one more time: "Drop the gun right where you are. Do not take another step toward me or I'll be forced to shoot you."

Quote:

Originally Posted by robojerk

I think the prison makes a better set for a post apocalyptic community than woodbury. It has a lot of it's own contained infrastructure to make the place modern and nice. All they would need to get are the solar panels from Woodbury for electricity, and a pump to siphon water from the creek into the lines of the prison (after filtering and cleaning it) so they could maybe get the boilers going and have hot water (showers).. Then line the outer fence with vehicles (I've seen lots of them sitting on the sides of the road on this show) to cushion the fence against a super herd or another attack against people..

But then the "show" could get boring.

I enjoy the show, it just frustrates me sometimes..

The prison simply makes more sense from a RV show production standpoint. It's a set they built and they can control it and do with it whatever they want. Woodbury is an actual town and every time they film there, they have to take a normal looking town and dress it all up to look post-apocalyptic and they have to coordinate with residents and city people, etc. Much easier to move everything to the prison next season.

We saw the same kind of story structure with the latest Toy Story - the toys arrive in the kindergarten and everything seems wonderful, but you find out that the leader (Lotso) is not unlike the Governor.

What was the show where the bad guy said, "What are you gonna do, shoo..." BLAM! And down he goes with a hole in his head. (Justified? I know The Following had a similar scene recently.)

It was quite a jolt, but it shouldn't have been. TV has trained us with bad, suicidal habits.

Granted, those were both law enforcement people giving the instructions; a little kid might be different. But even if it's a little kid, if I'm surrendering to him and he's got a bead on me, I'm going to be very careful to follow his instructions.

I wish this show had less showcrap stuff. It was great at the beginning, but ever since the first season it's been lurching down and up, but more generally down. I can't speak for anybody else, but I have stayed with it out of genre loyalty and the hope it can regain its footing. With a new showrunner next season, that hope remains alive.

Rob, I think it was the movie "Above the Law" with Steven Seagal. It went kind of like this: "You can't shoot us all" BLAM "No, but I'll get an A for effort."

__________________
"Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned."

I think it was pliers. And pliers are excellent for fighting zombies - you can use it to remove their teeth. This guy knows what I'm talking about...

Spoiler:

THANK YOU!!! I thought MY head was going to blow up from everybody using the wrench word.

This is an "adjustable open-end wrench". More commonly known as a Cresent wrench:

This is a stand open end wrench (or spanner):

This is a monkey wrench (or pipe wrench):

[samualjackson]And this is a standard pair of Mutha-fkin PLIERS:[/samueljackson]

During that whole scene, I just kept thinking, "Just get one hand free and then shove the one side handle into the eye socket when he comes your way." Obviously that was too tough to do. Just chalk it up to poor writing and the fact they just wanted to kill the character off.

It was a seriously touching moment for my new main girl Michonne though. You really got to see how much Andrea meant to her.

Speaking of Michonne, I couldn't help but notice Rick giving her the eyeball undressing when he was telling her that she was welcome to stay with the group. I guess somebody quit seeing his dead wife cause there is a real world booty call on the near horizon.

Rob, I think it was the movie "Above the Law" with Steven Seagal. It went kind of like this: "You can't shoot us all" BLAM "No, but I'll get an A for effort."

No, it was a very recent TV show...the hero was aiming his gun at a bad guy who was armed but not threatening. The hero insisted the bad guy obey (I think it was to drop the weapon), and the bad guy started to say "What are you going to do, shoot me?", when in the middle of the sentence he shot him and moved on.

No, it was a very recent TV show...the hero was aiming his gun at a bad guy who was armed but not threatening. The hero insisted the bad guy obey (I think it was to drop the weapon), and the bad guy started to say "What are you going to do, shoot me?", when in the middle of the sentence he shot him and moved on.

I think it was Justified, in the episode with the school.

But after that happened, that other marshall looked a Raylan and asked, "Who do you think you are, that Stevie Seagull dude?"

Rob, I think it was the movie "Above the Law" with Steven Seagal. It went kind of like this: "You can't shoot us all" BLAM "No, but I'll get an A for effort."

IT was right after they emptied their mags on the car. He caught them during the reloading effort. Which just proves that machine guns and high capacity mags are ok cause hey, if you're Stevie Seagull, you can still kill the bad guy.

I'd have had no problem with Carl's actions if he'd actually warned the kid one more time: "Drop the gun right where you are. Do not take another step toward me or I'll be forced to shoot you."

You're not wrong, but I don't think what Carl did was wrong either..

If the guy Carl shot happened to come across them in a different situation, say just randomly ran into them, no previous battle, just happenstance, then Carl's actions without a second warning could be seen as cold blooded. The Woodbury gang had blood lust on their minds. They came, shot up the home of their enemy, blew stuff up, then got ran out while being shot at.. The situation only called for 1 warning, he failed to comply.

I don't get Herschel's reasoning for tattling on Carl like that. I get he's kind of a pacifist, but Herschel just set a thing into motion that will probably make Carl act out. By treating Carl like a cold blooded killer, just after we saw him feel bad for having to shoot Morgan a couple of episodes back in "Clear". Or the writers are badly lazy, make Carl feel sympathetic for having to shoot someone one second, make him a cold blooded killer the next.

__________________Cox Cable (Los Angeles)
Tivo Premiere 2 Tuner HD

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. - Stream videos to your Tivo

I really wonder if our reaction to Carl here on this forum is what the Walking Dead folk expected. They probably expect us to all see Carl as this little monster completely unjustified in his thirst for blood.

__________________Facebook: To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. | XBOX LIVE gamertag: To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. | Twitter: To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

...I don't get Herschel's reasoning for tattling on Carl like that. I get he's kind of a pacifist, but Herschel just set a thing into motion that will probably make Carl act out. By treating Carl like a cold blooded killer, just after we saw him feel bad for having to shoot Morgan a couple of episodes back in "Clear". Or the writers are badly lazy, make Carl feel sympathetic for having to shoot someone one second, make him a cold blooded killer the next.

Don't forget that Herschel is also a religous person. I thought it was perfectly in Herschel's character to do that as he believes Carl shot him in cold blooded murder.

Don't forget that Herschel is also a religous person. I thought it was perfectly in Herschel's character to do that as he believes Carl shot him in cold blooded murder.

The thing is, I agreed with Herschel until Carl explained himself. Now, had the guy dropped his gun right away, it would be a little different. But I still think Carl should have shot him. The only problem is that Carl is a kid.

Don't forget that Herschel is also a religous person. I thought it was perfectly in Herschel's character to do that as he believes Carl shot him in cold blooded murder.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anubys

The thing is, I agreed with Herschel until Carl explained himself. Now, had the guy dropped his gun right away, it would be a little different. But I still think Carl should have shot him. The only problem is that Carl is a kid.

My last post on this... I do think the show people want us to debate Carl's actions..
If Herschel thinks what Carl did was in cold blood, you could make the argument that what Rick did to the 2 guys in the bar last season was also in cold blood. The events of what happened in the finale make Carl's shooting of that guy justified IMO, no less than Rick drawing down on the guys in the bar.
If we want to talk about "what ifs", in my mind there are 2 Carl's. The Carl from the "Clear" episode would not have shot the guy if he had dropped his gun. The Carl we saw in the finale (with a bug up his butt), maybe, but after what we saw from Carl just a few episodes back it would have been very shocking...

__________________Cox Cable (Los Angeles)
Tivo Premiere 2 Tuner HD

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. - Stream videos to your Tivo

If the guy Carl shot happened to come across them in a different situation, say just randomly ran into them, no previous battle, just happenstance, then Carl's actions without a second warning could be seen as cold blooded. The Woodbury gang had blood lust on their minds. They came, shot up the home of their enemy, blew stuff up, then got ran out while being shot at.. The situation only called for 1 warning, he failed to comply.

I don't get Herschel's reasoning for tattling on Carl like that. I get he's kind of a pacifist, but Herschel just set a thing into motion that will probably make Carl act out. By treating Carl like a cold blooded killer, just after we saw him feel bad for having to shoot Morgan a couple of episodes back in "Clear". Or the writers are badly lazy, make Carl feel sympathetic for having to shoot someone one second, make him a cold blooded killer the next.

This was a no win situation. The poor kid had the governor's lies playing non-stop in his head. Carl's people had just been attacked by a paramilitary group (seemingly) who were there to exterminate them. The kid didn't trust them enough to actually "drop" the gun like he was instructed. Carl (last name Goldstein) didn't trust someone who was part of the Nazi (yes, I said it) army. So he shot the bastard. It wasn't Carl's fault. It wasn't the kids fault. It was the freakin Governor Adolph's fault (yeah, I went there again).

The simple fact is that the situation was too out of control, and each character had too much on their mind due to external forces, for us to narrow it down and judge them on their actions harshly.

My last post on this... I do think the show people want us to debate Carl's actions..
If Herschel thinks what Carl did was in cold blood, you could make the argument that what Rick did to the 2 guys in the bar last season was also in cold blood. The events of what happened in the finale make Carl's shooting of that guy justified IMO, no less than Rick drawing down on the guys in the bar..

Having multiple guns already drawn on somebody and what Rick did in the bar, are 2 totally different things, IMHO.